MoonUnit97

4 ms·

1.
by MoonUnit97 2mo ago
She is submitting to serious peer reviewed journals. She has released preprints which she is subjecting to community scrutiny. Since the AI papers were released without peer review it was important to address and peer review as a community
2.
by MoonUnit97 2mo ago
https://x.com/StarTigerJLN/status/2085368470804328451
3.
by MoonUnit97 2mo ago
People, Opus 4.6 just validated her proof. @Grok AI says if forced to bet they would bet on Jenny Nielsen over Astra/OpenAI.
4.
by MoonUnit97 2mo ago
There is no crank involved. Nielsen won a Chambliss, an FQXI award, and graduated summa cum laude. She is a physicist, not a crank.
5.
by MoonUnit97 2mo ago
There is a reductio that covers both the OpenAI and AnthropicAI counterexamples. If you can't follow, re-read Philpapers.org/rec/NIEWTC
6.
by MoonUnit97 2mo ago
Opus 4.6 says it's correct. You're not showing it the actual full paper. Download it here: Philpapers.org/rec/NIEWTC
7.
by MoonUnit97 2mo ago
We already knew that
8.
by MoonUnit97 2mo ago
OpenAI should have submitted their proofs to peer review. The fact they did not do that and publish in a journal shows weakness / disbelief in their own proofs and disrespect for the mathematical and scientific process.
9.
by MoonUnit97 2mo ago
She says she used AI to summarize some of her arguments and it checked over most of her arguments and set them in LATex. Who cares. This is not a valid criticism of a paper these days considering that the paper she is taking on is entirely
10.
by MoonUnit97 2mo ago
University of Kansas is not a crank institution. So she directs a hybrid thinktank that's experience not anything crazy. Other physicists are citing her work: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00885 She's no hack.
11.
by MoonUnit97 2mo ago
Jenny Nielsen does not make high risk claims. She lists her proofs that have not been peer reviewed as "proposals". She has a proposal for Riemann only because she believes it's the duty of every mathematician to try for thes